Changing the way a copyright protected audiovisual work is presented can raise various legal problems. Remember the DGA v. Clearplay case? There is a legal interest of the author or who owns the copytight in the integrity of their works, and it can be protected in many different ways (Moral rights, although not in the States; Lanham Act art. 43 (a); the economic content of the authors reputation; freedom of speech, etc.). I'm a lawyer, but not in the States, so please excuse my english.
What are the legal consecuences of a intelligent machine? Do we protect human rights because a)we are intelligent or potentialy intelligent or b) just because we are from the same species? If and animal or a machine can became as intelligent as us, will their personal rights be protected? Do they have dignity?
The United States, Mexico, UK, among other countries requires that a work, in order to be protected by Copyright MUST be fixated. A Derivative work is still a "work", so it also must be fixated. So, is there any fixation of the "derivative work" in the RCA player? Could it be fixated on the DVD player's cache?
Completely different is the case in Continental Law countries (most of Europe, Japan, Latin America...). Fixation there is NOT a requisite for protection, so in those countries these kinds of devices should be illegal.
A third point is Moral Rights, also common in Continental Law Countries, but not so in USA or the UK. Moral rights are a consequence of thinking that there is a powerful link between the author and his works, and that all the works contain the authors personality. That is why, in the moral rights doctrine, you cannot alter the integrity of any work that could be prejudicial to the authors honor or reputation. On the other hand, copyright law in the states, for historical and cultural reasons, mostly cares just of the economic value of the works, and treats them as commodities. To clarify this differences, just think why the law that protects intellectual works is called COPYRIGHT in common law countries (the right to make copies that have and economic value) and Authors Right in Continental Law Countries...
Please excuse my english.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are thinking about a display that lasts for 1000 years? I don't think so. I think they missed a few zeros.
Changing the way a copyright protected audiovisual work is presented can raise various legal problems. Remember the DGA v. Clearplay case? There is a legal interest of the author or who owns the copytight in the integrity of their works, and it can be protected in many different ways (Moral rights, although not in the States; Lanham Act art. 43 (a); the economic content of the authors reputation; freedom of speech, etc.). I'm a lawyer, but not in the States, so please excuse my english.
Who owns the copyright of the computer generated music? The programer? The user? The machine?
What are the legal consecuences of a intelligent machine? Do we protect human rights because a)we are intelligent or potentialy intelligent or b) just because we are from the same species? If and animal or a machine can became as intelligent as us, will their personal rights be protected? Do they have dignity?
The United States, Mexico, UK, among other countries requires that a work, in order to be protected by Copyright MUST be fixated. A Derivative work is still a "work", so it also must be fixated. So, is there any fixation of the "derivative work" in the RCA player? Could it be fixated on the DVD player's cache? Completely different is the case in Continental Law countries (most of Europe, Japan, Latin America...). Fixation there is NOT a requisite for protection, so in those countries these kinds of devices should be illegal. A third point is Moral Rights, also common in Continental Law Countries, but not so in USA or the UK. Moral rights are a consequence of thinking that there is a powerful link between the author and his works, and that all the works contain the authors personality. That is why, in the moral rights doctrine, you cannot alter the integrity of any work that could be prejudicial to the authors honor or reputation. On the other hand, copyright law in the states, for historical and cultural reasons, mostly cares just of the economic value of the works, and treats them as commodities. To clarify this differences, just think why the law that protects intellectual works is called COPYRIGHT in common law countries (the right to make copies that have and economic value) and Authors Right in Continental Law Countries... Please excuse my english.
Are you american? Is that kind of thought... no wonder why the rest of the world hates you, guys.
That must be one happy toilet! And BTW, being hippy is mostly about love, while the filth in your toilet is because you are a dirty MTF.